National Resource Sharing Working Group

Interlending Issues Discussion Paper

Paper prepared for the 1st Meeting of the National Resource Sharing Working Group (NRSWG) held on Friday 14 May 1999, by Charu Sood, National Library of Australia.

The paper has been written to stimulate discussion of ILL issues in Australia for the first meeting of the NRSWG. It does not assume that these are the only issues the group will focus on or that the group will agree on all the issues.

Background

Over the years Australia has developed all the components of a resource-sharing infrastructure underpinned by policies which facilitate the sharing of collections held in Australian libraries. The policies which underpin the Australian Interlending system have been published by ACLIS in the Australian Interlending Code. As well as outlining 12 principles for sharing resources, the guide also recommends charges based on turnaround time and mode of delivery. There are also many sectoral and regional reciprocal agreements for interlibrary lending.

Although the policies and the infrastructure have the potential to provide a cohesive, efficient and effective interlibrary lending system, the reality is that the system is stretched and some of the fundamental principles such as reciprocity are under stress.

It is now widely accepted that libraries are increasingly dependent upon resource sharing to meet the needs of their users. Despite the extensive use of electronic resources, the use of Internet to request from overseas libraries and the use of commercial document suppliers there is still heavy dependence by Australian libraries on each other’s collections to meet the needs of their users. This is as it should be, as once Australian libraries have invested the funds - a large proportion of which are spent on overseas materials to acquire collections – it should be both cheaper and more efficient to use each other’s collections as a first resort to meet the needs of users. It is in the interests of Australian users and Australian libraries that use of and access to the collections in Australian libraries is maximised. However although the principle may be sound in theory, there are many reasons why in practice this is not the case.

Issues

A major issue is the consideration of whether we have developed an appropriate policy framework for resource sharing which will underpin the state of the art infrastructure developments. interlibrary lending/document delivery is a rapidly evolving area of library work and the factors which impact on practices are many and varied. Some of these factors are generic and apply to the interlending activity in any country, whilst others are of more concern to Australian libraries.

Supply and Demand in Interlibrary Lending

Over the last decade Australian libraries have embraced the concept of ‘just in time’ provision instead of building big collections ‘just in case’ some one wants to use something. This change in philosophy has put an increased pressure on interlibrary lending departments in libraries and has brought them more into the mainstream of library activity than they have been traditionally. However the interlibrary lending system has not responded to this changing philosophy by supplying materials to meet this ‘just in time’ demand. Therefore the requesting side of interlibrary lending operations has been forced to meet the challenge of getting materials ‘just in time’ without corresponding changes in supply side of interlibrary lending. As a result the traditional interdependence between demand and supply in the Australian interlibrary lending system is out of balance, supply can no longer meet the performance requirements of demand and so the requestors have to resort to finding new sources of supply which deliver the needed performance. This they do increasingly by using commercial document suppliers and overseas libraries’ collections.

Should we be concerned about the practice of sourcing documents from overseas when they are held in Australian libraries?

Performance of Australian Interlibrary Lending

A major issue which interlibrary lending officers quote for not using the Australian interlibrary lending system is the slowness and unpredictability of the response time. The move by libraries to a just-in-time policy of getting materials has fuelled the demand for quick turnaround time for interlibrary lending. A recent survey of clients of the National Library’s Document Supply Service rated ‘supply turnaround time’ as the most important characteristic looked for in a document supplier. Cost of interlibrary lending and consistent service were the next two important qualities interlibrary lending staff looked for in a supplier. These ratings were the same regardless of the type of library, as the responses from university, special and public libraries were all analysed separately. The Australian interlibrary lending system delivers predictable and quick turnaround time for Fast Track and Premium Track services. However these services are very expensive and so not able to be used on a regular basis by most libraries.

For standard delivery there is no set turnaround time either for delivery or for a negative reply if the item cannot be sent. A library could therefore wait for anything from a few days to a few weeks before they get a response. Increasingly this is becoming unacceptable to interlibrary lending staff and their patrons. There are some libraries which do offer a quick and more predictable service, and interlibrary lending staff will use these services more. However there is no overall reliability and consistency in the system. interlibrary lending staff are therefore increasingly using commercial document suppliers as they see them as offering a more reliable service.

A related issue is that the concept of reciprocity is an underlying tenet of the Australian interlibrary lending system. Libraries are expected to lend or supply copies from their collections if they wish to borrow. Although the system accommodates net lenders (usually large libraries) and net borrowers (generally small libraries), large libraries which do not supply but only borrow are not popular with interlibrary lending staff. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some large libraries which do not wish to put the resources into supporting supply from their collections, opt out of the reciprocity obligation of the Australian interlibrary lending system by requesting from commercial suppliers.

Automation of Interlibrary Lending

There are many reasons why the supply side of interlibrary lending has lagged behind the requesting side. Amongst these are:

  1. the fact that when supplying, staff are helping other libraries’ users, and when requesting, serving their own users so the latter always take priority,
  2. supply operations are not adequately resourced,
  3. supply is seen as an expensive and subsidised activity which libraries wish to curtail etc.

A major underlying cause is that interlibrary lending has traditionally been a very complex process and so has been the last to benefit from the efficiencies provided by automation. A majority of Australian libraries still have manual processes for managing their interlibrary lending. It is only now that we are beginning to see systems for automating interlibrary lending becoming available. The work of Mary Jackson and the IPIG group must be acknowledged here.

In Australia we are poised on the threshold of significant changes in the way we manage our interlibrary lending with the implementation of Kinetica Document Delivery System and LIDDA with the ability to integrate electronic document transmission through Ariel. Libraries not participating in either of these systems are also contemplating purchasing other interlibrary lending systems.

It is critical that we ensure that the implementation of these systems leads to a more efficient and less expensive interlibrary lending system and that an appropriate match is achieved between policies and systems. We will also need to get the policies right so that the access to and use of Australian library collections are maximised.

Development of a Two Tiered System

Monograph supply from overseas is still difficult, expensive and unreliable, so while use of interlibrary loans for copies has declined, its use for loans has increased. A two tiered system is, therefore, developing where commercial document suppliers are used for copies and libraries are used for monograph supply via traditional interlibrary loans. There are some dangers in this as libraries will need to increase their subsidies for monograph supply without benefiting from some of the economies of scale and reduced costs of copy supply to balance the high costs of monographs supply. There are also implications for the staffing of interlibrary lending functions and skills maintenance of staff.

Staffing & Structure of interlibrary lending Departments

The impact of tight budgets in libraries is not confined to collection development; it also affects staffing levels. So while the demand for interlibrary lending is increasing there is not necessarily a corresponding increase in interlibrary lending staff.

One strategy libraries are using to cope with these pressures on staff is to restructure their interlibrary lending departments. Some have split the requesting functions from the supplying function linking the former with acquisitions, others have centralised interlibrary lending operations within the campus, and others have decentralised previously decentralised operations. In some universities the interlibrary lending department also handles inter campus traffic of books and/or loans and course pack dispatch to distance education students.

Meeting the needs of their own students and researchers naturally takes priority so the requesting function receives precedence over supplying to other libraries when staff are stretched. As interlibrary lending is seen largely as a subsidised activity some organisations either actively or tacitly discourage other libraries from sending them too many requests by providing a slow turnaround time. These issues affect the overall efficiency and reliability of the Australian interlibrary lending system.

The universities which have split their requesting and supplying functions would appear to provide a better supply service than those where the functions are combined as staff are dedicated to each function.

End Users Needs and Expectations

The demand for efficient interlibrary lending is also being driven by the expectations of end users. These expectations are fuelled by the ease with which users can get some materials via the Internet. There is a perception that users find the current interlibrary lending system bureaucratic, complex, unreliable and ineffective. The system needs to be made more transparent and accessible to end users. There is a need to research the needs and expectations of end users and the level of user satisfaction with the service also needs to measured.

Unmediated Document Delivery

Another trend is to shift some of the burden of interlibrary lending directly to users by developing gateways with commercial document suppliers such as UnCover. Faculty staff are given budget allocations for document supply with precautions taken to ensure that staff do not order materials in the home library’s collections. The requesting and supplying activity thus bypasses the library.

To cope with increased workloads interlibrary lending staff, either on an ad hoc basis to cope with staff shortages or on a regular basis, use commercial document suppliers who will accept requests which have not been verified. It is time-consuming and expensive to verify and to check local availability. interlibrary lending staff will also use commercial suppliers when it is economic to do so. For example the cost of getting a document of under 10 pages from BLDSC (1 Unit costing 5.25 pounds) is comparable to the cost of ACLIS charge for standard delivery (Australian $12.00). interlibrary lending officers will therefore filter those requests off to the BLDSC so that they can save both time and cost of verification involved in checking for Australian holdings. BLDSC is also faster than many Australian libraries for standard requests. Another reason given for using collection based commercial document suppliers such as the BLDSC is that the size of the collection ensures a good fill rate. As a result the time taken in handling negative requests is saved.

Cost of Interlibrary Lending in Australia

The agreed standard costs of interlibrary lending in Australia had been set through ACLIS, and a majority of Australian libraries conform to these. Effective from July 1997 the cost of standard delivery called the ‘core service’ was raised from $9.00 to $12.00. This was done after a study on the costs of interlibrary lending in Australia. A factor in setting the price was that under the Australian Copyright Act 1968, libraries are not allowed to use document supply to make a profit, so the charges were based on a cost recovery model. The increase in costs has made the Australian interlibrary lending costs non-competitive when compared to some overseas libraries and document suppliers. In particular Internet and electronic delivery have enabled some major overseas commercial document suppliers to supply at competitive rates into the Australian market.

The ACLIS cost study did not compare costs of provision of interlibrary lending in Australia with those of other countries. interlibrary lending processes have not generally been reengineered to reduce the cost of interlibrary lending. An area of activity for Australian libraries is to examine ways to streamline and reinvent interlibrary lending to reduce costs and to make it more accessible to end-users. The guidelines developed by NSW public libraries are a step in the right direction. In the USA there is valuable work being done to improve the efficiency of interlibrary lending operations in libraries by the NAILDD (North American Inter Library Loan and Document Delivery) project. CAUL in Australia has developed the performance indicator kit on Document Delivery Performance but these are not used outside the university sector and are not well known.

Lack of an Agreed Resource Sharing Policy at National Level

Despite the acceptance of the concept of a Distributed National Collection (DNC), and conspectus to record library collecting strengths and intentions by Australian libraries these are, as yet, not underpinned by agreed policies for access. Cooperative collection development efforts amongst Australian libraries are limited and have not lived up to the promise of the early discussion on DNC issues. Cooperative collecting efforts exist between state and national library in relation to collecting Australian materials with the emphasis being on preserving the national documentary heritage and not necessarily on access. Until appropriate and reliable access regimes capable of delivering just-in-time performance have been developed, cooperative collection development is unlikely to find favour.

Data on What is Happening in Interlibrary Lending in Australia

The issues raised above are based on observations, discussions on lists and informal discussions with interlibrary lending librarians. There is no recent empirical data on what is happening with the interlibrary lending system in Australia. Below are posed some questions for which we need to obtain answers:

  • Are the above observations correct?
  • Are there concerns and issues not raised above which we do not know about?
  • Many of the issues discussed above are relevant to large interlibrary lending/DD operations such as those in universities. Are the same issues relevant to the public, special and other libraries? Or are there other concerns for these sectors?
  • How are Australian libraries sourcing interlibrary lending/DD requests and what are the factors that influence their decision making?
  • What process improvements need to be made?
  • What level and numbers of staff are being employed to do interlibrary lending/DD? What are their qualifications?
  • What is the success and failure rate of interlibrary lending?
  • Are Australian libraries supplying more, requesting more or is the trend to less activity overall?

The last major survey into interlibrary lending was done by ACLIS in 1994. It is timely to conduct another major national survey to capture the current state of the Australian Interlending system and to provide an accurate and up to date basis for future actions.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the library community needs to address the effectiveness of the document delivery and interlibrary practices in Australia if we are to capitalise on the investment in both infrastructure and collections to meet the needs of Australian users. This paper has broadly canvassed a number of the key issues impacting on the performance of the Australian interlibrary lending system. The National Resource Sharing Working Group has been given the mandate to respond to these issues and to develop strategies and recommend appropriate actions and policies to improve the effectiveness of the Australian interlibrary lending system.

Charu Sood
Director Interlending Services
National Library of Australia
4 May 1999

Back to the top